Results

Communication and Collaboration

The communication plan constitutes a constant updating procedure that starts with the kick-off meeting of the project and continues with the total set of communication activities that took place during the whole project period. The exact CARISMA Communication Plan provides a detailed description of the project plan regarding, exclusively, dissemination and communication actions implemented by the CARISMA Consortium.

Stakeholder engagement forms a key aspect of the CARISMA project. Stakeholders, as ‘practitioners’, bring knowledge’ to the research tasks in the project. This helps to assess options for mitigation against multiple aspects, such as costs, carbon footprint, public acceptance and other benefits and risks. CARISMA also aims to explore how contextual factors (economic, social, technical, political) can contribute to or slow down deployment and diffusion of mitigation options. Stakeholder inputs help to understand possible contextual factors and identify possible measures to address these factors.

At the CARISMA project website project results are posted in different forms: from detailed research documents to policy briefs. Next to the project website, CARISMA, together with other EU-funded projects on mitigation, has created an online portal http://ClimateChangeMitigation.eu which contains highlights from these projects, thematically categorised.

Stakeholder engagement and communication of results are key elements of CARISMA. In this report, we explain how these two aspects have been implementation during the first year and a half of the project, including how we aim at promoting project outputs to policy impacts through engaging with policy makers.

CARISMA has prepared a Synthesis Report, in the form of a slide deck, to update stakeholders on the first 18 months of the project. It describes, for each main topic and for workpackages, what has been achieved and what will be the next steps, including references to publications.

In line with the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) targets to cut member states’ emissions by 80-95% by year 2050 (see EU Energy Roadmap 2050). While models exist trying to predict whether and how such targets could be met, no up-to-date knowledge exists on the actually conducted research, development and innovation (RD&I) of the EU to commit to the target. This deliverable is aimed to fill this knowledge gap. It is a horizon scan of FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 RD&I projects on mitigation.

This report reviews those technologies that have the highest mitigation potential to enable a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target of 95% or more across the EU economy. Such a climate policy target requires transformational technology changes well beyond efficiency improvements in all sectors of the economy. Developing technologies with the highest mitigation potential in all major sectors of the economy should be prioritised for future research. Information on mitigation potential of technologies in sectors is contrasted with data on how funding for mitigation technology development has been distributed across different sectors so far.

The Paris Agreement demands fast action on climate change. In order to achieve its objectives of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2°C, and strive for limiting it to 1.5°C, economies have to reduce emissions significantly and rapidly. Innovative climate change mitigation technologies that entail radically
different practices than conventional technologies will need to be part of this global endeavour, particularly since incremental improvements and efficiency gains of conventional technologies and methods of producing, transporting and consuming goods and services will not be sufficient to tackle the climate challenge. Many such new technologies are available to address climate change. However, many also face significant challenges. Based on previous work carried out in the CARISMA project, this working paper explores some technologies needed that enable deep decarbonisation in multiple sectors, in particular hydrogen (in the steel industry and transport), energy storage, carbon dioxide capture and storage, heating, cooling and more efficient envelopes for buildings, biofuels for aviation, and improved fertiliser use and livestock management (agriculture). We focus our analysis not only on their technological readiness level (TRL) but also on their economic, environmental and social barriers and enablers, once they would be mature enough for increased market uptake and diffusion. We then explore funding streams available to these technologies for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in order to ready them for society and the market. Recommendations for resolving issues and making use of enabler include living up to the research and development spending commitments made earlier in the EU, aligning innovation funding better with future market uptake, reforming markets and putting the right kind of incentives in place for market uptake, and giving society and users a voice in the development of new technologies.

Assessment of technologies for climate change mitigation

For two technology options for mitigation - of Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Solar Photovoltaic (Solar PV) - this report contains an overview of issues for further research in order to enable their further development, deployment and diffusion. The report identifies research gaps and priority areas for further research, and provides insights for policy decision on both technology options. The analysis in the report is based on assessment of stakeholder perspectives and concerns and review of scientific literature.

This report includes system costs in the macroeconomic assessment of wind and PV moving beyond classical LCOE assessments of renewable energy expansion and showed the critical importance of incorporating macroeconomic effects and feedbacks for policy evaluation and design.

In the face of climate change it is clear that we need to adjust the way we produce our energy. There are many different climate change mitigation technologies, four of which will be discussed in this report: 1. Wind farms over Northwestern Europe, using realistic wind speed data; 2. Solar parks based on global solar radiation data; 3. Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), a relatively new technique where the CO2 emissions caused by the biomass burning are captured and stored; 4. Direct Air Capture (DAC), also known as artificial trees, this mitigation technology where CO2 is captured from the ambient air is still in the experimental phase.

This policy brief sheds light on the question of what social implications climate technologies might have and how fear of and opposition to those implications are voiced by different stakeholder groups, and gives recommendations on how to respond. Findings from studies on bio-energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture of CO2 (DAC) and smart grids are brought together. Inclusiveness and openness are needed to avoid ‘one-size fits all’ approaches which might be challenged by communities affected by climate technologies, and to identify much-needed opportunities and co-benefits of mitigation technologies.

The EU "Winter Package" contains specific goals for energy and climate and calls upon Member States to formulate Integrated National Energy and Climate Plans (INECPs). While the energy and climate goals of the EU require scaling up of climate change mitigation technologies, integrating such options in existing economic and social structures is not always easy. Building further on the insights from the CARISMA project, this report analyses issues that Member State policy makers may face when formulating INECPs and scaling up technology options for mitigation. These issues are then analysed as case studies for three EU Member States: Greece, Austria and the Netherlands.

Mapping and Assessing Policies for Mitigation

This Deliverable presents the insights gathered during our research efforts on two work package tasks. The first part of the report categorises and analyses information available in 24 climate change policy databases and identifies gaps and potential information needs. Moreover, it sheds some light on the question of whether the policy information available actually meets the needs of stakeholders using these databases by using an extensive online and offline stakeholder consultation process. The second part of the report focuses on the issue area of policy interactions. Four case studies (France, Austria, Greece, EU-wide) analyse how different climate change mitigation policies (Energy Efficiency Measures, Renewable Energy Support) and instruments (EU ETS) interact with each other and what lessons can be drawn from past experiences in those countries.

This report presents the main findings from a meta-analysis of climate change mitigation policy evaluations in the European Union (EU) and the six Member States: Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom.

Policy implementation: understanding contexts

This report first characterises the complex problem of climate change by elaborating on the 'wicked' nature of climate change as having impacts on all sectors of society. Then it explains key features of climate change governance by highlighting its diffused nature, how it involves a myriad of actors and a range of non-hierarchical, collaborative modes of governance. The report explores how coherence in the international climate governance architecture can be improved. It concludes with a discussion on the role of the EU in international climate governance after the Paris Agreement.

Institutional, economic and social contexts influence the formulation as well as the implementation of climate policy instruments. To design more robust and adaptive instruments, it is necessary to understand different categories and types of contextual factors that are central to EU climate change mitigation. This paper identifies three types of contextual factors: institutions and governance; innovation and investment; attitudes, behaviour and lifestyle. By categorising the contextual factors and mapping examples of how each factor shapes and influences mitigation policies and their outcome, this paper seeks to contribute to more systematic understanding and structured discussions for EU and member state policy-makers.

This report is aimed at addressing two main research questions, one about how contextual factors that are beyond direct control of policymakers may actually influence the outcome of specific policy instruments and another about how these factors are accounted for in the adoption and implementation of policy instruments.

Throughout this report the focus is set on the factors that broadly hinder the deployment of energy and climate mitigation policies and technologies, and on suggestions for policy makers on how these can be overcome. This report’s work is based on results of the CARISMA D6.3 (Fujiwara, Williges and Tuerk 2017), which explored the effects of contextual factors on implementing climate change mitigation options with the help of a set of case studies.

International Collaboration on Research and Innovation for Mitigation

This policy brief provides guidance and recommendations to international institutions on how to get involved in climate change mitigation collaboration projects around research and innovation. It does so by looking closely at experiences of past and current research and innovation collaborations in the field of climate change mitigation.

As collaborative research and innovation (R&I) initiatives have the potential to advance climate technology transfer across borders, in particular in developing countries, European governments have put in place various initiatives to facilitate deployment of climate technologies. In the CARISMA project, such initiatives were mapped in a background report, and discussed in a workshop involving stakeholders from government, industry, academia and international organisations.

As international collaborative research and innovation (R&I) initiatives have the potential to advance climate change mitigation technology transfer across borders, in particular in developing countries, some industries have developed various international R&I collaborative initiatives to facilitate deployment of low-carbon technologies and practices. This Policy Brief summarises general lessons and identifies recommendations for stimulating international collaborations on R&I among industries for policy makers and for industry.

This report provides an updated overview of research and development (R&D) offshoring, focusing on the key drivers and challenges for the MNCs involved. The report identifies the following main drivers for the observed increase in R&D offshoring to emerging economies: (i) cost considerations;(ii) the effective adaptation of products to local markets; (iii) the search for talent and new ideas; and (iv) the aspiration to tap into local systems of innovation. The main challenges of R&D offshoring the report identifies are: (i) cultural and organisational differences; (ii) how to manage globally dispersed R&D activities; and (iii) how to protect intellectual property rights.

The European Union (EU) has taken a leading role in global efforts to address climate change, including a wide range of international cooperation efforts related to renewable energy technologies and policy engagement. Technology transfer and technology diffusion across countries or regions for renewable energy has long been a subject of interest for researchers as well as policy makers. More recently, the analogous notions of policy transfer and policy diffusion have also gained in importance in light of the significant impacts of key policies such as feed-in tariffs and renewable auctions. This report undertakes a detailed analysis for these two instruments, focusing especially on the transfer of policies from the EU and its Member States to other countries, with case studies in Peru, Kenya, Uganda and Thailand. The analysis suggests important pre-conditions for successful policy transfer that can help to attract investment, including clear policy goals, knowledgeable champions of the policies and a framework of targeted policy instruments.

Synergies and Synthesis

The aim of this policy brief is to provide climate policymakers with actionable insights from research that can help them navigate the challenging environment created by the Paris Agreement provisions as well as by the recent developments in many societies and markets. While there are many tensions, we discuss three in particular based on CARISMA project results: (1) using policy evaluation in a rapidly changing world; (2) taking a firm lead while remaining on speaking terms with society’s stakeholders, on whom they depend for implementation; and (3) the need for cooperation while countries and companies are also in tough global competition for the world’s clean technology market share.

In the Paris Agreement, the importance of the involvement of the private sector for reaching the targets was highlighted. Businesses are responsible for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions. There is not only a large emission reduction potential, but also a significant private investment potential. In this brief synthesis report, the potential roles, challenges and opportunities of businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in climate change mitigation and the transformation to a zero-carbon economy are described. This includes leadership roles through public-private and businessled initiatives, but also a follower role as subject to national and international climate policies.

In this report we review the research, development and innovation space of four low-carbon technologies with applications across different sectors: energy storage, syngas and power-to-gas, hydrogen and carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).
We find that for energy storage, syngas and power-to-gas, and hydrogen plenty of funding opportunities exist in Europe for all technologies, which are aimed at demonstration (syngas, storage), and scaling up. Costs have come down over time for all technologies, but are still at a level that prevents competitiveness without policy intervention. In terms of regulatory barriers for each technology, storage, hydrogen and syngas are largely limited by insufficient levels of infrastructure.
CCS also is in need of social acceptance, on which it is challenged, in addition to smart policy design to push the technology out of the “technology valley of death” in which it is currently stuck. Policy incentives largely aim at improving economic competitiveness of the technologies now and in the short-term, but our review shows that long-term policy agendas with clear, integrative goal setting are equally important as it allows stakeholders to gain trust.

Planning and implementing ambitious NDCs require capabilities in different areas. These capabilities, however, are not widely available among Parties to the Paris Agreement. Especially several developing countries are in need for capacity improvement on several NDC planning and implementation elements. First, assessing options for mitigation and adaptation requires ability to understand impacts of these options on countries’ economies and societies when implemented on a larger scale. Data limitations and unfamiliarity with possible impacts of (technology) options complicate such assessment in several countries. Second, scaling up prioritised climate options requires that systems are sufficiently enabling for that. In practice, both in developed and developing countries, several barriers form obstacles to such scaling up and clearing these requires financial, institutional, legal and policy capacity. The latter requirements are often difficult to fulfil in many developing countries, due to financial and institutional limitation, but also in several developed countries enforcement of climate and energy policies is problematic due to capacity limitations. To support developing countries in strengthening capacities for more ambitious NDCs, under the Paris Agreement the Paris Committee on Capacity-building has been established. The paper synthesizes the presentations and discussions on capacity building aspects related to planning and implementing NDCs, presents an overview of current support for capacity building under the UNFCCC, and provides respective conclusions.

Scientific knowledge is key to climate mitigation governance. However, effective exchange between science and policy is challenging. Science-policy theory suggests collaboration, stakeholder participation and iterative communication as key principles for improving the science-policy interface. The Horizon 2020 project “Coordination and Assessment of Research and Innovation in Support of climate Mitigation Actions” (CARISMA) attempted to implement these principles. To help other projects learn from CARISMA’s experiences, this reflection essay critically discusses how the CARISMA project fared. CARISMA’s activities included stakeholder engagement through feedback loops, interviews with Advisory Board members, and an information platform. Experiences were discussed in a workshop with science-policy practitioners. Theory and workshop participants’ insights led to the identification of seven practical directions towards a more effective exchange between science and policy, aimed at policymakers, funding agencies and researchers: 1) Know the researcher’s role; 2) Work with policy dynamics; 3) Use alternative communication means; 4) Allow for flexibility in projects’ deliverables and milestones; 5) Be realistic about the possibility of stakeholder engagement; 6) Adjust funding criteria; 7) Invest in stable knowledge infrastructures.